Skip to main content

Academic Double Standards

For years now the debate whether the actions or words of people speaking out about Israel's policies towards Palestinians are anti-semitic or anti-Israel have raged around the world. Academics, in particulars, have sought to impose sanctions in various ways against Israeli colleagues.

The NY Times reports today:

"Two days before British academics were to vote on a possible boycott of their Israeli colleagues, the lines sharpened on Saturday as 600 university teachers from Britain, Canada, the United States and Israel came out in opposition to the move while Palestinian and other academics supported it.

The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Britain's biggest union of college teachers, is to vote Monday on a resolution enjoining its 67,000 members to boycott Israeli colleagues who do not distance themselves from what it calls Israel's "apartheid policies."

There is nothing wrong with academics - or indeed anyone else for that matter - taking a principled stand on a particular issue. But the academics, here, are dead-wrong, hypocritical and engaged in double standards. What about all the other issues which should also ignite indignation and a boycott? Arabs who support suicide-bombers? - just for starters. But even that aside what are individual Israeli's supposed to do? Should American academics be boycotted, in say the UK, because America spear-headed the Iraq War? And what could those academics have done to stop the War in the first place let alone bring it to an end?

This does all rather smack of anti-semitism, however it is dressed up, and not becoming truly engaged in seeking to end Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Read the NYT Times article here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...